STAISH MANGHARAM TANWANI Vs. FREIGHT HANDLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against nil award dated 31.8.1989 in M.A.C. No. 260 of 1985 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane. The appellant had instituted a claim petition against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, owner of truck bearing No. MRL 4837 and insurer respectively claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - for having suffered an accident and consequent permanent partial disability which had taken place on 12.2.1985. It was averred in the claim petition that appellant (original claimant) was then 26 years of age and he was working as Sub -Engineer with CIDCO. That on 12.2.1985 he was proceeding from Mankhurd to Vashi and at about 9 a.m. when he had crossed about 40 metres on Thane Creek Bridge, truck belonging to respondent No. 1 and driven by one Govind Vithoba Karande (opponent witness No. 1) which was passing by his left side came to his side, as a result of which the appellant was thrown down from his scooter on the divider of the road. As a result of the accident, the scooter fell on his left leg and he suffered compound fractures of tibia and fibula. That he was rendered some assistance by an owner of Fiat car and soon thereafter lodged at the Rajawadi Hospital at Ghatkopar. It is the case of the appellant that he was an indoor patient of the hospital for about 2 -3 days and thereafter he took treatment in a private hospital of Dr. S.B. Mehta. It is the further case of the appellant that though he identified the truck from the mirror of his scooter as an open truck, he, however, could not know the number of the truck, but once he regained consciousness at Rajawadi Hospital, he had found a chit, on which the number of the truck had been written which had caused the accident. According to him, on the basis of this chit, a statement was recorded by the police. He, however, believed that out of the persons gathered when he had become the victim of the accident, one of them had noted down the number of the truck of respondent No. 1 and that is how placed the aforementioned chit in his pocket.

(2.) IN making a claim for Rs. 1,00,000 the appellant said that he has spent about Rs. 2,000/ - for medical expenses and about Rs. 1,000/ - for other expenses such as conveyance, special diet, etc. He also claimed that as a result of the accident, he was unable to attend his work for 104 days and in accordance with the terms of his employment with CIDCO, he was entitled to encash his leave and as he was forced to go on leave because of his physical condition, he lost the benefit of encashment at V/2 times. As a result of the disability suffered, he asserted that his future employment prospects are dim and working capacity is reduced and considering all this including the compensation for pain and suffering, shortening of expectation of life, etc., he made a composite claim of Rs. 1,00,000/ -.

(3.) IN the petition, the appellant led his own evidence and that of Dr. Naresh D. Khanna, Medical Officer attached to the Rajawadi Hospital. As against this evidence, the driver of the truck by name Govind was examined on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, however, on appreciation of the evidence, as mentioned earlier, dismissed the claim petition and on the contrary, ordered the appellant to pay the costs to the respondents. Ad cautelam the Tribunal held that even if it were to accept the theory and case of the appellant that the appellant suffered accident on 12.2.1985 the appellant could be awarded only a sum of Rs. 11,587.35 on all counts. For that matter, the Tribunal held that at the most the appellant could be held to have proved that he is entitled to have Rs. 263.35 towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000. - for fracture injury and pain and suffering and Rs. 6,324/ - towards leave salary in all making a total sum of Rs. 11,587.35.